Live data from Hacker News

Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

theregister.com

411–420 of 503 posts

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper analyzes facts re: wages and jobs, which I think are (comparatively) easy to measure as compared with productivity, and are also an area where people have concerns about the impact of AI. Mostly people aren't worried about productivity itself, which would be weird. "Oh no, AI is making us way more productive, and now we're getting too much stuff done and the economy is growing too much." The major concern i…

Won't doing the same job in half the time lead to having to pay half the salary? Indirectly, I mean. You can now hire half the people or pay the same number of people half. Unless twice the work is suddenly required, which I doubt.

No one knows, but if history is any guide, it is very unlikely.

I would also be surprised if the twice the work was "suddenly" required, but would you be surprised if people buy more of something if it costs less? In the 1800s ordinary Americans typically owned only a few outfits. Coats were often passed down several generations. Today, ordinary Americans usually own dozens of outfits. Did Americans in the 1800s simply not like owning lots of clothing? Of course not. They would have liked to own more clothing, but demand was constrained by cost. As the price of clothing has gone down, demand for clothing has increased.

With software, won't it be the same? If engineers are twice as productive as before, competitive pressure will push the price of software down. Custom software for businesses (for example) is very expensive now. If it were less expensive, maybe more businesses will purchase custom software. If my Fastmail subscription becomes cheaper, maybe I will have more money to spend on other software subscriptions. In this way, across the whole economy, it is very ordinary for productivity gains to not reduce employment or wages.

Of course demand is not infinitely elastic (i.e. there is a limit on how many outfits a person will buy, no matter how cheap), but the effects of technological disruption on the economy are complex. Even if demand for one kind of labor is reduced, demand for other kinds of labor can increase. Even if we need less weavers, maybe we need more fashion designers, more cotton farmers, more truckers, more cardboard box factory workers, more logistics workers, and so on. Even if we need less programmers, maybe we need more data center administrators?

No one knows what the future economy will look like, but so far the long term trends in economic history don't link technological innovations with decreased wages or unemployment.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#412
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this a worry? Sounds wonderful

I'm a bit worried about the social impacts. When a sector collapses and become irrelevant, all its workers no longer need to be employed. Some will no longer have any useful qualifications and won't be able to find another job. They will have to go back to training and find a different activity. It's fine if it's an isolated event. Much worse when the event is repeated in many sectors almost simultaneously.

Good thing that we have AI tools that are tireless teachers

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper analyzes facts re: wages and jobs, which I think are (comparatively) easy to measure as compared with productivity, and are also an area where people have concerns about the impact of AI. Mostly people aren't worried about productivity itself, which would be weird. "Oh no, AI is making us way more productive, and now we're getting too much stuff done and the economy is growing too much." The major concern i…

Won't doing the same job in half the time lead to having to pay half the salary? Indirectly, I mean. You can now hire half the people or pay the same number of people half. Unless twice the work is suddenly required, which I doubt.

I think it's quite common that a company has way too many things that it could work on compared to what the amount of people they should reasonably hire can get done. And working on more things actually generates more work itself. The more products you have, or the more infrastructure capabilities you build out, the more possible work you can do.

So you could work on more things with the same number of employees, make more money as a result, and either further increase the number of things you do, or if not, increase your revenue and hopefully profits per-employee.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#414
This line of worry has never panned out. There are two points:

1) AI/automation will replace jobs. This is 100% certain in some cases. Look at the industrial revolution.

2) AI/automation will increase unemployment. This has never happened and it's doubtful it will ever happen.

The reason is that humans always adapt and find ways to be helpful that automation can't do. That is why after 250 years after the industrial revolution started, we still have single-digit unemployment.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#416
post #16

Not replacing jobs yet. Seen a whole lot of gen AI deflecting customer questions which would have been previously tickets. That is a reduced ticket volume that would have been taken by a junior support engineer. We are a couple of years away from the death of the level 1 support engineer. I can't even imagine what's going to happen to the level 0 IT support.

We saw that happening before LLM bots with pre-LLM chatbots, FAQs, support wizards, and even redirects to site-specific or web-wide search. If you save more money avoiding human support costs than you lose from dissatisfied customers, it's a win. Same for outsourcing support to low-wage countries. Same for LLM chatbots. It's not some seismic event, it's a gradual move from high quality bespoke output to low quality mass production, same as it ever was.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#417

I'm generally an AI skeptic, but it seems awfully early to make this call. Aside from the obvious frontline support, artist, junior coder etc, a whole bunch of white collar "pay me for advice on X" jobs (dietician, financial advice, tax agent, etc), where the advice follows set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient, seem to be severely at risk. Example: I recently used Gemini for some tax advice that would…

> set patterns only mildly tailored for the recipient

If that’s true, probably for the best that those jobs get replaced. Then again, the value may have been in the personal touch (pay to feel good about your decisions) rather than quality of directions.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#419

It is possible for all of the following to be true: 1. This study is accurate 2. We are early in a major technological shift 3. Companies have allocated massive amounts of capital to this shift that may not represent a good investment 4. Assuming that the above three will remain true going forward is a bad idea The .com boom and bust is an apt reference point. The technological shift WAS real, and the value to be del…

The dot com boom gave us $1T in physical broadband, fiber, and cellular networking that's added many many trillions to the economy since. What's LLM-based AI gonna leave us when its bubble pops? Will that AI infrastructure be outliving its creators and generating trillions for the economy when all the AI companies collapse and are sold off for parts and scrap?

Among other things the big tech companies are literally planning to build nuclear power plants off this so I think the infrastructure investments will likely be pretty good.

Re: Generative AI is not replacing jobs or hurting wages at all, say economists

#420

My primary worry since the start has been not that it would "replace workers", but that it can destroy value of entire sectors. Think of resume-sending. Once both sides are automated, the practice is actually superfluous. The concept of "posting" and "applying" to jobs has to go. So any infrastructure supporting it has to go. At no point did it successfully "do a job", but the injury to the signal to noise ratio wipe…

In the specific case of résumé-sending, the decline of the entire sector is a good thing. Nothing but make-work.
Post reply on HN